As if Congress weren't already in the MPAA's pockets, given the recent Family Craptacular Act of 2005 that President Bush signed into law yesterday, Congress is also in the pockets of ... the for-profit weather data industry?

That's right, folks. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) has, ironically, done one of the gayest things a senator could ever do. This time, the pandering isn't even covert. It's the opposite of that. Some might say it's covert.

Last week, Santorum introduced S.786 into the Senate, "To clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service, and for other purposes."

What are these duties? Apparently, they are to collect a whole lot of meteorological data. And then guess what Santorum doesn't want the National Weather Service to do? Give you these data for free! Currently, the NWS, a government agency, provides meteorological data for free. Under Santorum's revised "duties," the NWS would be prohibited from giving away meteorological data for free -- or in any other way "that might influence or affect the market value of any product, service, commodity, tradable, or business," since NWS competes with private-sector weather data companies.

I think this is probably the most asinine thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Pity the poor private-sector weather collection agencies. Sure, you can have your storm warnings -- for five dollars. Hey, we're just trying to make a living!

The old laws of economics once said that if you aren't making money doing something, it's time to do something else. The new laws of economics say that if you're not making money doing something, lobby Congress to enact legislation that will allow you to make money doing whatever it is you're doing. For example, if you're a guy in charge of a private-sector weather agency, and you're not making money because NWS provides its data for free, don't go into another line of work! Just find the most easily paid-off Congressman you can and lobby him or her to write legislation that eliminates your competition! (See also Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA], in which media companies forced new markets and technologies to behave like old ones, so they could continue using old-and-busted business models instead of innovating.)

Also, EFF points out that you already pay for NWS information, since it's a taxpayer-funded agency. Santorum's bill would still allow -- and indeed, require -- NWS to provide weather data to private weather companies. Under Santorum's plan, then, you would pay twice for meteorological data.

For this reason (and others, definitely), Rick Santorum is a SEDHE Villian of the Forever.

Posted by Mark at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I have a confession to make. I love Disneyland. Sure, the corporation is a large, nameless, faceless ogre that destroys everything in its path. Sure, it has worked tirelessly to restrict copyright laws (no kidding; Disney lobbied the hardest for the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act because Mickey Mouse was close to coming into the public domain), and Michael Eisner is pure evil.

But I love Disneyland. I'm a sucker for good art direction, and Disney has by far the world's best design team. They're called Imagineers and they're half production designer and half engineer. They work tirelessly to make Disneyland seem more real than real -- what Baudrillard calls "hyperreality" in his work Simulations and Simulacra, in which he uses Disneyland as an analogy for the rest of the United States: a reality filled with signifiers with no signifieds behind them.

So even if Disneyland is filled with mere illusion, I still like it. Its New Orleans Square seems more real than the real New Orelans (and it's certainly cleaner and less filled with homeless people and drunken fratboys). Walking into Frontierland is like stepping into a 1950s romanticization of the Old West. Adventureland is like walking into a 1950s idea of what the "East" must have been like: green, mysterious, full of adventure. Edward Said would have a heart attack. But then he would go on the Jungle River Adventure and everything would be okay.

No one does theming (the creation of an illusory reality based on particular architectural or historical styles) better than Disney. This is why I gasped for joy when I read at Boing Boing that someone had made thirteen CDs' worth of Disney sounds and music. A lot of these are general park soundtracks, but some of them are actual ride tracks. The older, the better. Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion are the best of these tracks, and it's probably no coincidence that these attractions are both located at New Orleans Square. (Here's a fun story about New Orleans Square: Club 33, the posh dining area in New Orleans Square which is invitation-only -- and the only place in the park that serves liquor -- is filled with authentic New Orleans antiques wrangled by Imagineers on Walt Disney's orders. Disney wanted Club 33 to resemble an authentic New Orleans mansion and had the Imagineers obtain real artifacts from New Orleans to populate Club 33.)

These audio tracks are great, but they open in pop-up windows, so downloading all thirteen CDs of music and sounds will be a pain in your behind.

Posted by Mark at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

After hearing two weeks' worth of testimony calling Bush UN Ambassador nominee John Bolton's conduct into question, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), said, "I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable voting for Mr. Bolton." Voinovich has suddenly called Bolton's approval into question: with 10 Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee and 8 Democrats, it seemed like it would be a 10-8 vote in favor of Bolton. Now, though, it could be a tie!

For breaking with party lines and voting the way a normal person should vote, George Voinovich is -- surprisingly (and despite all the bad he's done in the past) -- SEDHE's Hero of the Week!

Posted by Mark at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is attempting to frame the debate about President Bush's ten judicial nominees in religious terms: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith," he said of Democratic threats to use a filibuster to block Bush judicial nominees.

Are Democrats really attempting to block religious nominees in order to keep godless communists in charge of the judiciary, or are there real problems with the ten nominees that Senate Democrats are blocking? Keep in mind that U.S. federal court postings are for life.

Terrence Boyle, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [MD, SC, NC, VA, WV]

Currently a U.S. District Court judge and a former aide to Senator Jesse Helms, Boyle has a history of judicial opinions that are damaging to individual liberty, says People for the American Way. An unusually high percentage of decisions (over 150) have been reversed by higher courts for violating procedural rules and ignoring precedent and clear statutory guidelines. He has repeatedly shown disdain for discrimination laws, suggesting that state and federal governments should not be bound by anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

A black woman currently a California State Supreme Court justice, was "found unqualified by the state bar evaluation committee, based not only on her relative inexperience but also because she was 'prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions'" when she was nominated to the California State Supreme Court in 1996. She has sarcastically called the New Deal "the triumph of our socialist revolution." She is frequently the lone dissenter in California State Supreme Court opinions.

Richard Griffin, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [KY, MI, OH, TN]

As a judge in the Michigan Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Griffin ruled against striking workers who were being replaced by permanent workers, saying that they were ineligible for employment benefits under state law (Wohlert Special Products, Inc. v. Michigan Employment Security Commission, 527 N.W.2d 514 [Mich. 1994]). In another opinion (Doe and Roe v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 601 N.W.2d 696 [Mich. App. 1999]), Griffin suggested that Congress should pass a law invalidating a U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that the ADA applies to state and federal prisons and prisoners.

David McKeague, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Currently a U.S. District Court judge, McKeague has been reversed several times in environmental matters, including a 2003 case (Northwood Wilderness Recovery, Inc., v. U.S. Forest Service, 323 F.3d 405 [6th Cir. 2003]) where he was unanimously overruled by the Sixth Circuit Court for approving a logging project with the environmental analysis required by law.

Thomas Griffith, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Formerly a legal counsel to the U.S. Senate, Griffith is currently the general counsel for Brigham Young University. He has no experience as a judge at any level and practices law in Utah without a license (his license, from the District of Columbia, is currently suspended for not paying dues). He has a hostility for portions of Title IX, the legislation which mandates equal treatment of men and women in college athletics.

William Haynes, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Haynes also has no experience as a judge at any level, as well as little to no experience in the courtroom. He is currently General Counsel to the Department of Defense. As counsel for the DOD, he "signed a memo that appeared to justify torture of POWs and suggest that the president could override federal law" and was responsible for drafting rules for military tribunals. He suggested the Hamdi and Padilla -- both U.S. citizens -- could be held indefinitely as enemy combatants.

William Myers, III, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [AK, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA]

Myers is a former lobbyist and lawyer for grazing and mining interests and was later Solicitor General for the Department of the Interior and Executive Director of the Public Lands Council. Like Haynes and Griffith, he has no experience as a judge at any level and has never participated in a jury trial. The American Bar Association (ABA) gave Myers its lowest passing rating of qualification for a federal court posting. He has "advocated extreme-right positions on Native American and environmental issues, often in contravention of accepted law."

Priscilla Owen, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [LA, MS, TX]

Currently a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, Owen is notorious for arguing for an interpretation of a Texas law in 2000 that would make it nearly impossble for a girl to obtain a court order allowing her to get an abortion without parental permission. Current U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then her colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, said her interpretation was "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

William Pryor, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [AL, FL, GA]

Very hostile to abortion rights. Quotes from him: "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children"; "The Constitution says nothing about a right to abortion"; and, regarding Roe v. Wade, "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history." While the Attorney General of Alabama, Pryor supported an amicus brief supporting a Colorado voter initiative that would have prohibited local governments from enacting laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination. Also filed an amicus brief supporting the state of Texas in Lawrence v. Texas.

Henry Saad, nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Currently a judge with the Michigan Court of Appeals, he has a trend of writing opinions against workers in harassment, wrongful termination, injury, or whistleblowing suits. In other suits where corporations are the defendants, he usually finds in favor of the corporation.

Of the ten nominees, then, five have demonstrated very conservative voting records, one has demonstrated pretty conservative voting records (Saad), three (Griffith, Haynes, and Myers) are outright unqualified to be federal court judges, and one (Boyle) has questionable qualifictions. Perhaps the Democrats aren't as crazy as we've been led to believe. Also remember that U.S. Circuit Court postings are a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court.

Republicans criticize the Democrats for holding up Senate approval of these ten judges, who have gone through the committee approval process and await approval by the full Senate, but they disregard their own history. The Senate has approved 205 Bush judicial nominees, more than the Republicans let through by the same time during Clinton's administration. But the Republicans have been so used to getting their own way for the last four years, they would rather have a televised temper-tantrum this Sunday than compromise on the ten most conservative (and unqualified) federal court nominees.

Sources

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3145351
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=147
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=46
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=73
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=76
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=83
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/haynes_final%20report.pdf
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/saad_report.pdf
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16407
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17979
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=18100
http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=28490
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/griffith.htm

Posted by Mark at 8:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Today is the ten-year anniversary of the terrorist attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Discussion of this anniversary has been relatively quiet; I didn't know until yesterday that it was happening. What is the reasoning behind this? In two years, we will celebrate the five-year anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In a country where anniversaries of events that are multiples of five are big deals, Oklahoma City's anniversary is without a lot of fanfare.

For thirty years prior to Oklahoma City, Americans could safely say that terrorists were Muslims. It was Muslims who killed nine Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games in 1972. It was Muslims who took 66 Americans hostage in 1979. It was Muslims who blew up a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. It was the Muslims who blew up Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, scotland in 1988. Imagine the nation's surprise when we discovered that it was a Christian -- Timothy McVeigh -- who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.

An ABC News piece about the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing says:

But McVeigh, though influenced by the anti-government and racist ideology of militia and white supremacist groups, was a member of none of them. Like Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, he was essentially a lone wolf who acted on his own.

"That's where the danger is," said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino. "If there's anything Oklahoma City demonstrated, it's that a committed domestic terrorist doesn't need to be a part of an organized group to have a devastating effect."

This isn't true. Evidence shows that McVeigh was a member of some white supremacist groups. He was a believer in Christian Identity, a conservative Christian movement which holds that white North Americans are the racial descendants of the ancient tribes of Israel and Jews are the descendants of Satan. They hate non-whites, communists, and homosexuals, as well. Christian Identity believers are what is called "post-millennial" in their eschatology. They believe that the world must be cleansed before the Second Coming of Christ ("post" meaning that Christ will return after a godly dominion on Earth is established), and they are logically the ones to do it. Violence caused by human beings will be necessary in order to create the conditions under which Christ will return. Christian Identity believers are also believers in Reconstruction theology, which says that the ideal system of government is a Christian theology rooted in the Bible, and our civil laws should change to match what the Bible (the infalliable word/law of God) says about what is right and what is wrong.

It's far too easy to shrug Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph off as independent "crazies." They are definitely part of a larger theological movement which uses violence as a means to either (1) get its politics across, or (2) bring about Judgment Day. Both of these uses of violence are grounded in religion, since they are using Christian values to determine what should be blown up and what shouldn't be, and their politics are Christian (i.e., the Christians should be in charge). Eric Rudolph hates abortionists and homosexuals and feels that the government, in its implicit endorsement of homosexuality and abortion (ostensibly because it doesn't outright outlaw both practices), is no longer legitimate, and he must take the law into his own hands. These are not individual "crazy" viewpoints. There are thousands of people around the country who believe what Rudolph believes.

It is quite easy for Christians to believe that Islam is a religion of violence, since it isn't their religion. It's much harder for them to accept that there are people out there committing violent acts in the name of Christianity, and harder still to believe that there are entire communities of support ("interpretive communities," says Mark Juergensmeyer) out there who believe the same thing. If Timothy McVeigh were "a lone wolf," then we could chalk his violence up to being a wacko who radically misinterprets Christianity, while in the meantime, Islam is a religion of violence. But to suggest that Christianity could lend itself to violence is a heretical statement indeed, but the fact is that both religions have been used -- and continue to be used -- to justify terrorist acts. Christians are terrorists, too, and they commit terrorist acts in the name of a Christianity that they believe is the true Christianity (while others who talk about "non-violence" are in fact non-believers who have been co-opted by a tyrannical secular government; if they were "real Christians," then they would be fighting alongside the Christian Identity people and the Reconstructionists).

This is a statement from someone who adamantly believes that true Christians cannot be violent, while true Muslims can certainly be violent:

I am, as most informed people are, aware of the political climate of today. I am aware of the hatred for Osama bin Laden [I myself hate him] and other terrorists. I am aware that after the vicious, violent acts of terrorism, carried out by terrorists, on September 11th, irrational people associated terrorism with Islam, with Muslims, with anyone of that skin color. But, these people do not speak for the entire American public. This class, just because of the political climate, should not try to manipulate the study of a particular religion in a certain light, whether that be a more violent depiction Christianity, or less violent depiction Islam. To do so would be a perversion of the truth, unfaithful to the academic pledge of honesty and integrity, and would be an unethical teaching practice void of all reason but sympathy for the very people we as a country are in a fight for our lives against.

But the simple fact is that people commit violent acts in the name of religion all the time. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus do it. Our attitude that terrorism comes from without, not within, is a naive one. Christians commit terrorist acts all the time. But, because we are a Christian country, we don't attribute that violence to a trend, but rather to a specific, abnormal instance. It is a trend -- a chronic problem rather than an acute one -- and on this tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, we would do well to remember that terrorists are regular, everyday people, and terrorism can come from anywhere, from any person of any religion or ideological persuasion.

Posted by Mark at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The future goal for U.S. passports is, according to the State Department, to have radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in them. RFID chips are tiny microchips (also called "tags") that have information stored on them. They can be "read" by an RFID reader, which sends a radio signal to the chip, causing the chip to activate and return its information to the RFID reader (the cool thing is that the chip is actually powered by the radio wave that hits it). What's on this chip? "[E]verything on the passport's information page: name, date and place of birth, and digitized photo."

Privacy advocate Ed Felten wanted to know why such a technology would be necessary at all. First of all, this technology is covert in that you don't know that your passport is being scanned. Why is this necessary in a free society? Why would the government want to be able to scan your passport without your knowledge? Second, it would allow the U.S. government to track its citizens in foreign countries. Third, it would allow criminals to identify Americans based on the number their passport returns. No matter how much you can blend in with the culture, your passport will give you away, and criminals love rich American targets. Fourth, privacy advocates were up in arms when the State Department said it would not include security measures, such as foil-lined covers, in passports to prevent them from being read unwantedly. Aluminum foil would block the radio transmission, meaning a person would actually have to open his passport if he wanted it to be read by someone. This means it could not be read by snoopy agents or criminals, only when the passport's owner wanted it to be read. The government didn't like this idea for some reason.

Anyway, Ed Felten asked some questions of a State Department representative at the recent Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy. One of these questions was, why not smart cards? Smart cards are "contact-readable," meaning they can't be read from afar; the person reading the card has to come into physical contact with the person holding the smart card in order to read it. Is this a conspiracy? Is the FBI trying to track Americans covertly? The answer is not nearly that sexy, says Felten:

It seems that the decision to use contactless technology was made without fully understanding its consequences, relying on technical assurances from people who had products to sell. Now that the problems with that decision have become obvious, it's late in the process and would be expensive and embarrassing to back out. In short, this looks like another flawed technology procurement program.

Posted by Mark at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This week, The Amityville Horror (2005) opens, introducing a new generation of people to a story that's about thirty years old now and now truer then it was back when the original film, The Amityville Horror (1979), was released.

Back in 1974, Ronald Defeo, Jr. murdered his entire family in the infamous Dutch-colonial house on 112 Ocean Avenue in Amityville, Long Island. At the trial, Defeo claimed that he had seen the devil and that demonic voices had forced him to kill his family.

Fair enough.

About a year later, the George and Kathy Lutz and their family moved into the house. They were told up front that the Defeo murders were committed there, and they bought it, anyway (it was only $80,000). Once they moved in, strange things started happening:

They began to hear mysterious noises that they could not account for. Locked windows and doors would inexplicably open and close, as if by invisible hands. George Lutz, a sturdy former Marine, claimed to be plagued by the sound of a phantom brass band that would march back and forth through the house. When a Catholic priest entered the house, after agreeing to exorcize it, an eerie, disembodied voice told him to "get out."

After the aborted exorcism, the events began to intensify. The thumping and scratching sounds grew worse, a devilish creature was seen outside the windows at night, George Lutz was seemingly "possessed" by an evil spirit and green slime even oozed from the walls and ceiling. The family was further terrified by ghostly apparitions of hooded figures, clouds of flies that appeared from nowhere, cold chills, personality changes, sickly odors, objects moving about on their own, the repeated disconnection of their telephone service and communication between the youngest Lutz child and a devilish pig that she called "Jodie." Kathy Lutz reported that she was often beaten and scratched by unseen hands and that one night, she was literally levitated up off the bed. (From "Amityville: Horror or Hoax?")

These strange things culminated in a hellish night during which the family fled the house, never to return.

But their story has, rightly, been called a giant hoax, and no serious paranormal types consider it to be "a true story." Once strange phenomena started occurring, the Lutzes didn't call the police. They called up a family friend, Jay Anson, who was a novelist. It was Anson who penned The Amityville Horror in 1977, an account of the horrors the Lutzes faced at 112 Ocean Avenue. Anson also worked on the screenplay for the 1979 film, but died before it was released (how mysterious . . . or not).

The house was built in the 19th century, and no family before or since the Lutzes (with the exception of the Defeos, of course) has ever had any paranormal experiences there.

Additionally, the Lutzes make claims that are not true:

• The "built on an Indian burial ground" explanation so popular in contemporary horror films comes from the 1979 film and the book. No evidence to substantiate this claim has ever been found, and area historians say that there were no Indian settlements where Ocean Avenue is now.
• The mysterious "red room" from the film that was supposedly not in the house plans was in the house plans. The 1979 film shows the room behind a cinder-block wall, but the room's entrance was merely blocked. Furthermore, the entire room wasn't painted red. (And it probably wasn't a Portal to Hell.)
• The Lutzes have changed their story over time. Facts change from the book to television interviews (especially an episode of In Search Of in which they reveal all-new facts, like their daughter's eerie singing).

Hopefully The Amityville Horror will be a good movie. What I do not hope is that people keep attempting to pass this off as a "true" story. Its veracity is in question (and that's putting it lightly), and there are plenty of substantiated hauntings elsewhere in the world.

Posted by Mark at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)